Serious question. Have tax cuts ever, in the history of ever, created a single job? Where would the incentive come from to create a job by giving a company more income from nothing? Seems like it would always result in more money in the top's pocket.

"We continue to hire in areas where we're seeing increasing demand for products and services, but technology is changing rapidly and that affects hiring and employment," AT&T told Ars. "There are fewer jobs in parts of the business that are declining and facing technology shifts."

Hahaha, I knew it was going to come to a statement like that. "it is really hard to see what the future will be, especially in tech",except of course when it is about promising a wonderful new world of employment and economic boost in exchange for more money for executives and shareholders

I know it's not fair or charitable, but how in the hell did they not see this coming?

They got money in the re-election campaign AND they got to boast to their constituents how they brought jobs to the area. It was a win-win. The constituents won't hear about this part of the story so there's no problem.

Serious question. Have tax cuts ever, in the history of ever, created a single job? Where would the incentive come from to create a job by giving a company more income from nothing? Seems like it would always result in more money in the top's pocket.

Remember, the large print giveth, the small print taketh away. And ATT is the all-time master of the small print. Here's the small print attached to ATT's agreement to add these jobs:

"* Additional new jobs will be added at ATT's discretion over a 75-year period. ATT reserves the right to eliminate as many job as it wills at any time during the in-perpetuity timeframe of this agreement. ATT reserves the right to leave this agreement at any time. Promises made by ATT are valid up until the time ATT exercises its rights to deem said promises invalid, and at which time any said promises cease to be promises."

Serious question. Have tax cuts ever, in the history of ever, created a single job? Where would the incentive come from to create a job by giving a company more income from nothing? Seems like it would always result in more money in the top's pocket.

We tend to get better job growth under higher taxes. Witness the non-chicken-little sky falling under Clinton. But, that's under Democrats and you know how numbers lie when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Everytime I see an article about how corporations lied to get the tax break, I think that Republican voters are either gullible or outright stupid.

I know it's not fair or charitable, but how in the hell did they not see this coming?

They're neither. As long as Republican politicians enact legislation that hurts the right people, or blocks legislation that is aimed at helping people they don't like, they'll HAPPILY cut their nose off despite their own faces at every opportunity.

They got a tax break to say they would create jobs, so Trump could take credit and look bigly smart. They don't care if they actually just keep laying people off, they're probably all just nerdy liberals anyway.

Most tax experts already said this was going to happen, since taxes are already post profit, simply cutting corporate taxes is simply an incentive to eliminate jobs. Since none of the tax cuts were tied to job creation, in fact there are incentives to *outsource* in the tax bill, people simply act in their self-interest and in the direction that incentives push them.

Serious question. Have tax cuts ever, in the history of ever, created a single job? Where would the incentive come from to create a job by giving a company more income from nothing? Seems like it would always result in more money in the top's pocket.

Giving a company money for doing nothing? Why, that sounds like welfare! Corporate welfare though so in that case it's ok with Republicans. Any other welfare to directly help the people they supposedly represent that actually voted for them though? Nah. That's pure evil socialism.

Serious question. Have tax cuts ever, in the history of ever, created a single job? Where would the incentive come from to create a job by giving a company more income from nothing? Seems like it would always result in more money in the top's pocket.

I mean, it can. This is true especially if it is directly tied to the product so that it reduces the cost of the product (and thereby increasing demand). I'm thinking specifically of "tax cuts" like the stuff from the 18th century like the repeal of the Stamp Acts, the Sugar Acts, Molasses Act, etc.

Most of the "tax cuts" you see today aren't done for that. They're just there for shareholders and corporate profits.

Serious question. Have tax cuts ever, in the history of ever, created a single job? Where would the incentive come from to create a job by giving a company more income from nothing? Seems like it would always result in more money in the top's pocket.

It's theoretically possible at least. If there was a hypothetical company that wanted to meet unserved demand, but couldn't afford the costs of expansion to meet that because of high taxes, then conceivably lowering those taxes would allow the company to make that investment, creating new jobs along the way.

The problem is that this is entirely hypothetical, because the vast majority of companies aren't in this situation by any means. They're quite capable of raising the money necessary for any such investment, because if it's good enough to make, it's something you can convince lenders/etc to fund. The business itself is largely profitable, because if it wasn't, it wouldn't be staying as a business in its current form for long, taxes or otherwise. Thus, any extra income from tax cuts pretty much goes straight to extra profit.

None of this matters to the people that are pushing tax cuts though. As they would have you believe, the current situation is ALWAYS the hypothetical from the first paragraph, no matter what. It's much the same with any other consideration, such as the infamous Laffer curve. It isn't about drawing a conclusion from the evidence with them - it's about making the evidence fit the desired conclusion of cutting taxes.

On the subject of tax cuts, is it possible to require that companies use the savings in a way that actually benefits more than just the CEO and investors? Like, as a requirement to benefit from the cuts, they have to use certain percentages of whatever they save in different areas, say hiring? I'm thinking no, but I don't see how companies will ever do things that will benefit the "little guys" without such a requirement.